RE: [External] : Re: SQ: why transient instead of enhanced keymaps?

[Drew Adams]

> > For example, when choosing key completions
> > you can choose to sort:
> >
> > 1. By key name, prefix keys first
> > 2. By key name, local keys first
> > 3. By command name, alphabetically
> 
> A good Transient UI shows related functionality together. Function is
> what matters. A key being prefix, local or whatever is an implementation
> detail. And names are mostly accidental.

I beg to differ.  I often want to use a local key.
Just as I use `C-h m' to learn about the current mode.

I often want to know what local keys there are, or
what prefix keys there are, or explore a prefix key.

And I often want to match against command names for
commands bound to keys.  Or even match part of a
key sequence and part of a command name - e.g.
filter names for certain kinds of commands, learn
their keys, and choose a command/key.

Key completion isn't (in my use) only, or even
mainly, about completing a key to use it.  It's also
about discovery and guidance.

For the same reason I like to be able to back up
from any level in the key forest, and back down
other branches.  Including menu branches.  That's
another thing I might have mentioned as missing:
go up, down, and all around - all key bindings.